independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > the greatest rock'n'roll band in history
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 3 <123>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 07/30/17 1:54pm

rdhull

avatar

fortuneandserendipity said:

rdhull said:

fortuneandserendipity said: Naw... they deserve all the accolades they've received. It's their influences that haven't got the amount praise they should be given.

See my profile for 5 bands that cane the shit out of any mentioned here. Good day! ohgoon

Hon, theyre all great as well. I mentioned that. The ones we are talking at hand are as well. In some opinions, such as your, they dont hold a candle to the ones you mentioned. Even if so (hey, it's all subjective opinion) doesn't mean Stones, WHO, etc weren't good lol. What kind of game are we playing here?

"Climb in my fur."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 07/30/17 2:24pm

fortuneandsere
ndipity

Hmm is beggars banquet, let it bleed, sticky fingers, or exile on main street as good as fuzzy logic, radiator, rings around the world, phantom power? Basically to compare their four best albums... That game. While at same time, remembering there is an objective truth to everything. Was Jesus the messiah? No he wasn't, he was probably a very naughty boy.

The world's problems like climate change can only be solved through strategic long-term thinking, not expediency. In other words all the govts. need sacking!

If you can add value to someone's life then why not. Especially if it colors their days...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 07/30/17 2:49pm

rdhull

avatar

fortuneandserendipity said:

Hmm is beggars banquet, let it bleed, sticky fingers, or exile on main street as good as fuzzy logic, radiator, rings around the world, phantom power?

fuck yeah

thank you goodnight cool

"Climb in my fur."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 07/30/17 4:28pm

MoBettaBliss

fortuneandserendipity said:

Hmm is beggars banquet, let it bleed, sticky fingers, or exile on main street as good as fuzzy logic, radiator, rings around the world, phantom power? Basically to compare their four best albums... That game. While at same time, remembering there is an objective truth to everything. Was Jesus the messiah? No he wasn't, he was probably a very naughty boy.



yawnamundo

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 07/30/17 7:40pm

214

Pixies, The Beatles or One Direction.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 07/30/17 7:43pm

jjhunsecker

avatar

Dasein said:

jjhunsecker said:

As much as I love the Beatles and especially The Rolling Stones, I'm going to have to say LED ZEPPELIN


Brother, nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!


Oh, yes !

#SOCIETYDEFINESU
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 07/30/17 7:45pm

jjhunsecker

avatar

fortuneandserendipity said:

The Stones like The Who The Kinks and Led Zeppelin are all overrated I'm afraid.

Stones, Led Zep, and the Who are probably among the greatest fans in history. You cn never overrate them. I like the Kinks but put them at a slightly lower level

#SOCIETYDEFINESU
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 07/30/17 8:53pm

rdhull

avatar

MoBettaBliss said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Hmm is beggars banquet, let it bleed, sticky fingers, or exile on main street as good as fuzzy logic, radiator, rings around the world, phantom power? Basically to compare their four best albums... That game. While at same time, remembering there is an objective truth to everything. Was Jesus the messiah? No he wasn't, he was probably a very naughty boy.



yawnamundo

lol

"Climb in my fur."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 07/30/17 9:04pm

purplethunder3
121

avatar

Image result for mick jagger laughing gif

"Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything." --Plato

https://youtu.be/CVwv9LZMah0
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 07/30/17 9:16pm

rdhull

avatar

hell yeah lol

purplethunder3121 said:

Image result for mick jagger laughing gif

"Climb in my fur."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 07/31/17 1:29am

mjscarousal

fourletterwords said:

homesquid said:

Queen for me

Co-sign. Early 70s queen in particular is just phenomenal. One of the odd bands where the critics had to catch up to the fans. Beyond the best known stuff, Songs like "In the Lap of the Gods", "Stone Cold Crazy", "Death on Two Legs", all of the album Queen 2, "Prophets Song" "Jealousy" "Somebody to Love"..... and on and on. Freddie as a vocalist is obviously revered but as a songwriter is highly underrated. His personal travails, and the tragedy, kind of overshadowed the musical genius. Dude was amazing. And influence on newer generation - right up there w/ Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin... Can challenge all the best bands.

I agree he is very underrated as a songwrter nod

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 07/31/17 5:18am

HuMpThAnG

MoBettaBliss said:

stones-506764.jpg


mick taylor era stones

what say you?

nod

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 07/31/17 10:35am

fortuneandsere
ndipity

jjhunsecker said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

The Stones like The Who The Kinks and Led Zeppelin are all overrated I'm afraid.

Stones, Led Zep, and the Who are probably among the greatest fans in history. You cn never overrate them. I like the Kinks but put them at a slightly lower level

Yes they do have some of the greatest most fervent fans in history. Typo = freudian slip, I presume.

Some bands are just overrated I'm afraid. Popularity doesn't equal quality. We have Hootie and the Blowfish and Linkin Park as valid proof. And further up the scale The Eagles and Queen and others.

The world's problems like climate change can only be solved through strategic long-term thinking, not expediency. In other words all the govts. need sacking!

If you can add value to someone's life then why not. Especially if it colors their days...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 07/31/17 10:40am

fortuneandsere
ndipity

MoBettaBliss said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Hmm is beggars banquet, let it bleed, sticky fingers, or exile on main street as good as fuzzy logic, radiator, rings around the world, phantom power? Basically to compare their four best albums... That game. While at same time, remembering there is an objective truth to everything. Was Jesus the messiah? No he wasn't, he was probably a very naughty boy.



yawnamundo

^ belong on M1 M2 and Orince thread

The world's problems like climate change can only be solved through strategic long-term thinking, not expediency. In other words all the govts. need sacking!

If you can add value to someone's life then why not. Especially if it colors their days...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 07/31/17 4:23pm

Adorecream

mjscarousal said:

MoBettaBliss said:

stones-506764.jpg


mick taylor era stones

what say you?

nod All their 70's work are masterpieces and I think they are far better than the Beatles musically particularly during this period.

Me three, even though Taylor was completely ruined at the end of it. Yes the group were fucked up but look at the music.

. Let it Bleed (Their finest album)

. Sticky Fingers

. Exile on Main Street

. Good live album - get yer ya yas out. (In fact their only good live album)

.

The Stones had left behind their poppy mid 60s past and grown out of the flower powered psychedelia of 1967 (Well Beggars Banquet was as unpsychedelic as you could get) and it wa sbefore they moved into their 4 decades of dross.

.

The yes extends only to Exile, Goats Head Soup and I love Rock and Roll are rather fluffy and indulgent next to the rock of the big three. They have good songs, but a sthe 70s wore on the Stones were heading in a more commercial rock direction and Mick was bringing in his flirtations with disco and the like.

.

Most of yes extends to Mick, Keef and Charlie. Bill and Mick Taylor really were the filler and Mick Taylor is no Brian Jones or Ronnie Wood.

Got some kind of love for you, and I don't even know your name
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 07/31/17 4:54pm

jjhunsecker

avatar

fortuneandserendipity said:



jjhunsecker said:




fortuneandserendipity said:


The Stones like The Who The Kinks and Led Zeppelin are all overrated I'm afraid.



Stones, Led Zep, and the Who are probably among the greatest fans in history. You cn never overrate them. I like the Kinks but put them at a slightly lower level



Yes they do have some of the greatest most fervent fans in history. Typo = freudian slip, I presume.

Some bands are just overrated I'm afraid. Popularity doesn't equal quality. We have Hootie and the Blowfish and Linkin Park as valid proof. And further up the scale The Eagles and Queen and others.



Just curious- what bands do you think are BETTER than the Stones, The Who, or Zeppelin?
#SOCIETYDEFINESU
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 07/31/17 6:02pm

MoBettaBliss

Adorecream said:

mjscarousal said:

nod All their 70's work are masterpieces and I think they are far better than the Beatles musically particularly during this period.

Me three, even though Taylor was completely ruined at the end of it. Yes the group were fucked up but look at the music.

. Let it Bleed (Their finest album)

. Sticky Fingers

. Exile on Main Street

. Good live album - get yer ya yas out. (In fact their only good live album)

.

The Stones had left behind their poppy mid 60s past and grown out of the flower powered psychedelia of 1967 (Well Beggars Banquet was as unpsychedelic as you could get) and it wa sbefore they moved into their 4 decades of dross.

.

The yes extends only to Exile, Goats Head Soup and I love Rock and Roll are rather fluffy and indulgent next to the rock of the big three. They have good songs, but a sthe 70s wore on the Stones were heading in a more commercial rock direction and Mick was bringing in his flirtations with disco and the like.

.

Most of yes extends to Mick, Keef and Charlie. Bill and Mick Taylor really were the filler and Mick Taylor is no Brian Jones or Ronnie Wood.



you don't get it

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #47 posted 08/01/17 4:14am

fortuneandsere
ndipity

jjhunsecker said:

fortuneandserendipity said:

Yes they do have some of the greatest most fervent fans in history. Typo = freudian slip, I presume.

Some bands are just overrated I'm afraid. Popularity doesn't equal quality. We have Hootie and the Blowfish and Linkin Park as valid proof. And further up the scale The Eagles and Queen and others.

Just curious- what bands do you think are BETTER than the Stones, The Who, or Zeppelin?


I LIKE the Stones, The Who and Zeppelin. But to me The Beatles, REM, The Smiths, The Boo Radleys, and Super Furry Animals make better albums. Lots of bands do great songs. Doing more than 2 great albums just about everyone struggles with, and that's why I set those bands apart.

The world's problems like climate change can only be solved through strategic long-term thinking, not expediency. In other words all the govts. need sacking!

If you can add value to someone's life then why not. Especially if it colors their days...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #48 posted 08/01/17 8:27am

peedub

avatar

Dasein said:

The only knock I have against the Stones is that they are really, just fundamentally, practicing
pastiche: their body of work is mostly an imitative art that is celebratory of delta blues and all things
Americana (country-western, etc). I think most English blues-rock bands from the 60s and 70s
are really just celebrating the music that GIs introduced to their country during World War II any-
ways.

The Crowes are from Georgia and really lived it: they actually grew up in southern gospel churches
and hootenannies, so their boogie down rock n roll gospel country music just felt more authentic to
me. That said, my knock against the Crowes is that Rich Robinson's bridges always contain moving
four whole steps up from the tonic, adopting it as such, and then moving back down, which gets
kinda boring after awhile.



i get what you're saying about the stones...i just don't see it as a bad thing, necessarily. they eventually transcended imitation and, to my ears, made music that was uniquely 'the rolling stones'. chris robinson has followed the same path, only in reverse, focussing on being the grateful dead.

and i have no idea what you're talking about as far as rich robinson and his tonic and things...sometimes i'm glad i'm not a musician and can hear with my heart solely. as long as it makes me put my hands over my head and swing my hips askew, it'll do; fuck the math.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #49 posted 08/01/17 11:19am

jjhunsecker

avatar

fortuneandserendipity said:



jjhunsecker said:


fortuneandserendipity said:


Yes they do have some of the greatest most fervent fans in history. Typo = freudian slip, I presume.

Some bands are just overrated I'm afraid. Popularity doesn't equal quality. We have Hootie and the Blowfish and Linkin Park as valid proof. And further up the scale The Eagles and Queen and others.



Just curious- what bands do you think are BETTER than the Stones, The Who, or Zeppelin?


I LIKE the Stones, The Who and Zeppelin. But to me The Beatles, REM, The Smiths, The Boo Radleys, and Super Furry Animals make better albums. Lots of bands do great songs. Doing more than 2 great albums just about everyone struggles with, and that's why I set those bands apart.



To each his own. I love the Beatles. I liked REM up until about 1996, then they got boring to me. Never cared for The Smiths- I simply can't abide droning singers. I don't think I ever even heard a single song from either the Boo Radleys or the Super Furry Animals, so I can't comment on the quality of their music at all. Different strokes for different folks
#SOCIETYDEFINESU
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #50 posted 08/01/17 3:50pm

fortuneandsere
ndipity

jjhunsecker said:

fortuneandserendipity said:


I LIKE the Stones, The Who and Zeppelin. But to me The Beatles, REM, The Smiths, The Boo Radleys, and Super Furry Animals make better albums. Lots of bands do great songs. Doing more than 2 great albums just about everyone struggles with, and that's why I set those bands apart.

To each his own. I love the Beatles. I liked REM up until about 1996, then they got boring to me. Never cared for The Smiths- I simply can't abide droning singers. I don't think I ever even heard a single song from either the Boo Radleys or the Super Furry Animals, so I can't comment on the quality of their music at all. Different strokes for different folks

I kind of agree on REM. '96 was their last great album before their swansong. What marks out the Boos and Furries as great to me are what make Prince great. Tunes and stylistically daring. I'm sure he would have been a fan, had he come across them.

The world's problems like climate change can only be solved through strategic long-term thinking, not expediency. In other words all the govts. need sacking!

If you can add value to someone's life then why not. Especially if it colors their days...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #51 posted 08/01/17 5:46pm

NorthC

The Rolling Stones were, are and always will be The Greatest Rock & Roll Band on Earth. Why? Because they survived everybody. Every band, no matter who they were, they were still in diapers when The Stones were kicking ass. The Kinks? U2? Led Zep? They wouldn't even exist if it hadn't been for The Beatles and The Stones. Let alone any other band...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #52 posted 08/01/17 6:31pm

purplethunder3
121

avatar

Related image

"Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything." --Plato

https://youtu.be/CVwv9LZMah0
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #53 posted 08/02/17 10:01am

fortuneandsere
ndipity

purplethunder3121 said:

Related image

They look surprisingly well, better than they were 10 yrs ago.

The world's problems like climate change can only be solved through strategic long-term thinking, not expediency. In other words all the govts. need sacking!

If you can add value to someone's life then why not. Especially if it colors their days...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #54 posted 08/02/17 5:51pm

PurpleSullivan

avatar

For me, that honor goes to The Velvet Underground
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #55 posted 08/02/17 6:50pm

mltijchr

avatar

oh, I thought that honor went to SPINAL TAP..!

("hello, Cleveland..!!! hello.. CLEVELAND!!!!")

.

for me, it's a "tie" probably between Aerosmith & Van Halen (Roth's original stint with the band..).

.

I'm tempted to say STEELY DAN

but as it turned out.. after their 2nd album of ("classic") rock..

they evolved into something different..

I'll see you tonight..
in ALL MY DREAMS..
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #56 posted 08/02/17 10:33pm

mjscarousal

Adorecream said:



mjscarousal said:




MoBettaBliss said:


stones-506764.jpg


mick taylor era stones

what say you?




nod All their 70's work are masterpieces and I think they are far better than the Beatles musically particularly during this period.



Me three, even though Taylor was completely ruined at the end of it. Yes the group were fucked up but look at the music.


. Let it Bleed (Their finest album)


. Sticky Fingers


. Exile on Main Street


. Good live album - get yer ya yas out. (In fact their only good live album)


.


The Stones had left behind their poppy mid 60s past and grown out of the flower powered psychedelia of 1967 (Well Beggars Banquet was as unpsychedelic as you could get) and it wa sbefore they moved into their 4 decades of dross.


.


The yes extends only to Exile, Goats Head Soup and I love Rock and Roll are rather fluffy and indulgent next to the rock of the big three. They have good songs, but a sthe 70s wore on the Stones were heading in a more commercial rock direction and Mick was bringing in his flirtations with disco and the like.


.


Most of yes extends to Mick, Keef and Charlie. Bill and Mick Taylor really were the filler and Mick Taylor is no Brian Jones or Ronnie Wood.



Excellent post, I agree. They were the greatest rock band during this period.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #57 posted 08/04/17 1:45pm

fourletterword
s

PurpleSullivan said:

For me, that honor goes to The Velvet Underground



Strong argument can be made. They place at least 3 studio albums in the top 100, their "live 1969" album is phenomenal and features a totally different aspect of the band's greatness, Lou Reed places at least 2 more albums in the top 100 and Cale's solo work rivals that of Reed. Plus the mystique, look and influence...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #58 posted 08/05/17 5:36am

Dasein

peedub said:

Dasein said:

The only knock I have against the Stones is that they are really, just fundamentally, practicing
pastiche: their body of work is mostly an imitative art that is celebratory of delta blues and all things
Americana (country-western, etc). I think most English blues-rock bands from the 60s and 70s
are really just celebrating the music that GIs introduced to their country during World War II any-
ways.

The Crowes are from Georgia and really lived it: they actually grew up in southern gospel churches
and hootenannies, so their boogie down rock n roll gospel country music just felt more authentic to
me. That said, my knock against the Crowes is that Rich Robinson's bridges always contain moving
four whole steps up from the tonic, adopting it as such, and then moving back down, which gets
kinda boring after awhile.



i get what you're saying about the stones...i just don't see it as a bad thing, necessarily. they eventually transcended imitation and, to my ears, made music that was uniquely 'the rolling stones'. chris robinson has followed the same path, only in reverse, focussing on being the grateful dead.

and i have no idea what you're talking about as far as rich robinson and his tonic and things...sometimes i'm glad i'm not a musician and can hear with my heart solely. as long as it makes me put my hands over my head and swing my hips askew, it'll do; fuck the math.


Well, the reason why I don't criticize the Stones as much as I do bands like Led Zeppelin, is because
they (the Stones) openly acknowledged their influences and didn't present themselves with an aura
of mystique so as to convince their audience that their music was given to them in a vacuum. Chris
Robinson started out as an Otis Redding disciple; his inflection on the first two Crowes albums high-
lights this. I think a really good way to juxtapose this is by listening to Redding's "Try a Little Tender-
ness" to be followed by the Crowes' "Sometimes Salvation." Hell, the Crowes' first single was a Red-
ding cover. But, yeah; he's now on some Jerry Garcia tip . . .


As for the music theory, I hear ya. But, having some knowledge of that which I enjoy has only deep-
ened my appreciation for it. Then, I can hopefully opine on that subject with some kind of authority.
I listen with my head and my heart!

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #59 posted 08/05/17 11:13am

gandorb

It is hard to argue with The Rolling Stones because that they were really good for at least a couple of decades and still aren't embarrassing. I preferred the Beatles in the 1960s, but really they were more on the pop side of rock. I really like Zeppelin but other than their first album I think they strayed more into the heavy metal realm of rock, and weren't as diverse as the Stones. Queen does deserve plenty of accolades because the were extremely diverse with their hybrid brand of guitar rock, pop, and theatre. However, their choices to do so many styles rather than rock n' roll may negate them from being the best band of that genre.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 3 <123>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > the greatest rock'n'roll band in history